51³Ô¹Ï

The application was filed too late and is not receivable ratione temporis in accordance with art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute.

Regarding the Applicant’s challenge to the decision not to return her to the post she previously encumbered, since the Applicant was transferred to another Organization, she no longer has any contractual relationship, and therefore any lien to a post, with the United Nations Secretariat from the date of the transfer. The only remedy that the Applicant seeks is the return to the post she previously encumbered or assignment to a suitable vacant position in New York, and the Tribunal cannot order such remedy due to the cessation of the Applicant’s contractual relationship with the United Nations...

The Tribunal held that the Application was moot and irreceivable. The Tribunal observed that it had acquired ex officio knowledge that the Applicant had been separated from service on the grounds of abandonment of post. The Tribunal acquired this knowledge from Case No. UNDT/NBI/2018/105 that was also filed by the Applicant. In the circumstance, the Applicant was no longer a staff member and her request to be transferred to a duty station where the supply of electricity was stable or to grant her an agreed termination of the appointment had been overtaken by subsequent events rendering the...

The Tribunal noted that not only is the payment of SPA discretionary, certain conditions must be met before it is considered and granted. One of these conditions is that the applicant’s supervisor submits a statement to indicate that he took up the full functions of a higher-level post and whether he demonstrated an ability to fully meet the performance expectations of all functions of the post. The Tribunal noted that even though OSLA counsel initiated a request for SPA on behalf of the Applicant, his supervisor did not submit the statement as required and showed through emails and other...

The Applicant’s view of the broadcast as an implied decision refusing to re-assign him was not receivable because the refusals commenced as far back as 2014. Neither this application nor the request for management evaluation preceding it were made within the time limit for receivable challenges to these decisions. There was no administrative decision concerning negligent handling of the Applicant’s medical concerns as alleged in the application. The broadcast was not a reviewable decision because the Applicant suffered no adverse results. At all times the Applicant was on paid sick leave...

The Tribunal noted that the allegations of poor behaviour and the fact that those behaviours undermined the Applicant’s capacity to discharge the responsibilities assigned to him in an effective manner were not included in his performance evaluations. The fact that the allegations later became the subject of the email to the USGs of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Department of Field Service and formed the basis for the decision to reassign the Applicant to another office showed that there was no transparency on the part of the Respondent in the matter. The Tribunal also...

The decision not to renew the Applicant’s appointment beyond 15 January 2020 was superseded by subsequent decisions that resulted in the Applicant’s appointment being renewed to June 2020. Other than alleging that bias and an abuse of authority led to the superseded decision, the Applicant failed to demonstrate to the Tribunal how his rights remained adversely affected by the contested decision.

Any changes to the Applicant’s functions were simply a result of a change in management style by which the new head of department put herself more in center of the Applicant office’s work. The Applicant’s responsibilities were accordingly more aligned with her P-5 level and her job description rather than undertaking tasks at the D-1 level.

The application was dismissed. The Tribunal reasoned that in light of staff regulation 1.2(c ) and the Applicant’s job description, reassigning her from one work station to another within UNIFIL was legitimate. Therefore, the impugned decision being a lawful exercise of discretion, there was no basis to rescind it.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant’s allegations were unsubstantiated and therefore, found no basis to impugn the contested decision. As a result, the application was dismissed in its entirety.